Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 2:15-cv-01533

HANO contracted with Parkcrest to build affordable housing; Parkcrest was terminated and Liberty Mutual (surety) entered a Takeover Agreement, retained Parkcrest as completion contractor, but disputes over delays continued.
HANO filed a witness and exhibit list by the June 16, 2017 scheduling-order deadline; on August 3, 2017 HANO sought leave to amend that list to add two witnesses (Tropical A/C reps; Chuck Barbot) and five exhibits.
HANO said the added witnesses would authenticate discovery documents and testify about facts in those documents regarding latent defects in HVAC and water heaters, claiming the full extent of defects was learned only around June 15, 2017 and then communicated late to counsel.
Parkcrest and Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing the request was untimely (past discovery and expert-deadlines), prejudicial, and a pretext to introduce unreported expert opinions disguised as fact testimony.
The Court applied the Rule 16(b) good-cause factors (explanation for delay; importance of evidence; prejudice; continuance) and found HANO’s explanations inadequate, the proffered testimony not essential for authentication (many documents could be authenticated by listed recipients), and admission would be prejudicial and untimely.
The Court denied the motion to amend; minor remedial updates could be handled in the Pretrial Order, and the five proposed exhibits were excluded for lack of good cause.

Issue	HANO's Argument	Parkcrest/Liberty Mutual's Argument	Held
Whether leave should be granted to amend witness/exhibit list after deadline under Rule 16(b)	HANO: Learned extent of defects only in mid-June; needs to add witnesses to authenticate documents and testify to facts in them	Opponents: Request is untimely, prejudicial, and seeks to introduce unreported expert opinion	Denied — no good cause shown under Rule 16(b)
Whether proposed witnesses are necessary to authenticate documents	HANO: Tropical A/C and Barbot needed to authenticate inspection reports and an email	Opponents: Recipients and previously listed witnesses can authenticate; Barbot unnecessary for email	Denied — authentication could be accomplished without added witnesses
Whether proposed testimony would improperly introduce expert/technical opinion	HANO: Witnesses would testify to facts in documents and limited opinions about defects	Opponents: Testimony contains technical opinions requiring expert disclosure; prejudicial if allowed late	Court agreed risk of unreported expert testimony and prejudice weighed against admission
Whether continuance could cure prejudice from late additions	HANO: Trial continuance reduces prejudice	Opponents: Discovery deadlines remain; continuance insufficient	Denied — continuance did not cure prejudice; deadlines enforced

S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. Southtrust Bank of Ala., N.A., 315 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) (adopting multi-factor good-cause inquiry under Rule 16)
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2003) (district court has broad discretion to enforce scheduling orders)
United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000) (factors for authenticating e-mail evidence)
United States v. Jimenez-Lopez, 873 F.2d 769 (5th Cir. 1989) (Rule 901 does not require conclusive proof of authenticity)